RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:	DOCKET NUMBER:  02-02439
		INDEX CODE:  100.00

		COUNSEL:  NONE

		HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to reflect “Officer’s Resignation from all appointments in the USAF” to “Resigning regular officer accepting a commission as a reserve of the Air Force” and to restore his original pay date.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

He received inaccurate counseling at the time of his discharge in 1988.  He intended to transfer to the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR), as indicated on his original DD Form 214, block 9.  He consulted the USAFR and Air National Guard (ANG) and was advised that officer positions were not available at his relocation destination.  Consequently, the personnel technician who was unaware of the far-reaching consequences of his uninformed advice, instructed him to resign his commission rather than accept a reserve commission.  His error is evidenced in a letter from HQ AFPC dated 5 December 1988, changing block 9 from “USAFR” to “NOT APPLICABLE.”  When he subsequently and quickly found a position in a local USAFR unit, he learned that he could have accepted a reserve commission, thereby avoiding a break-in-service and a confusing and humiliating retaking of the oath-of-office.  He states that this has weighed heavily on his heart ever since he discovered it in 1988.  He inquired about correcting the record when he investigated his eligibility for promotion to major and was told a correction was not possible.  Others have advised him that a correction was unnecessary as he still had a so-called “good year” in Reserve terms.  However, his pay-date and promotion eligibility is negatively affected by this error.  Correcting this administrative error escalates in importance as he progresses toward retirement.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided Special Order AD-1889, dated 18 July 1988, Appointment Order, dated 10 March 1989, and other documentation.

Applicant’s complete submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving in the USAF Reserves in the grade of major, having been appointed on 3 February 1989.

During the time period in question the applicant was serving on extended active duty in the grade of captain.

Applicant was honorably discharged on 1 August 1988, in the grade of captain, under the provisions of AFR 36-12 (Voluntary Resignation: Miscellaneous Reasons). He served a total of 8 years, 10 months, and 20 days total active military service.

On 5 December 1988, the applicant’s DD Form 214 was corrected in items 9, 23, 26, and 28 to reflect that he was not transferred to the USAFR, that he was discharged rather than released and his narrative reason was Voluntary Resignation: Miscellaneous Reasons rather than Miscellaneous: to attend the Administration, Planning and Social Policy (School Leadership) Program, Harvard Graduate School of Education with the corresponding change in his separation program designator (SPD).

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommended denial.  They indicated that the applicant states he received inaccurate counseling at the time of his discharge.  He intended to transfer to the Air Force Reserve, as stated in block 9 of his original DD Form 214.  However, his DD Form 214 was corrected on 5 December 1988 for administrative corrections and block 9 was changed to “not applicable.”  The date of pay was adjusted due to a break in service from his previous active duty to his Reserve duty.

Based upon the documentation in the file, they believe the discharge was consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the discharge regulation.  Additionally, the discharge was within the discretion of the discharge authority.  The applicant provided no facts warranting a change in the discharge he received.  Accordingly, they recommend his records remain the same and his request be denied.

The evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant reviewed the evaluation and provided a response that is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.	The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing law or regulations.

2.	The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.	Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an error or injustice.  Applicant contends that he received inaccurate counseling at the time of his discharge.  He alleges he intended to transfer to the United States Air Force Reserve (USAFR).  However, we do not find his uncorroborated assertion in and by itself, sufficiently compelling to conclude that he is a victim of either an error or an injustice.  In this respect, he appears to have checked two blocks in Item 7 of his request for separation indicating his desire to tender his resignation from all USAF appointments and that he would be discharged from appointments he held.  However, Item 7D, which indicates a request for a Reserve appointment, was left blank.  Since he signed the form, it is reasonable to conclude that it properly reflected his desires at that time.  The fact that he changed his mind and sought a Reserve commission some six months later does not result in an inescapable conclusion that he wanted the commission at the time of separation.  Therefore, in the absence of persuasive evidence that he was miscounseled as alleged, we agree with the Air Force that his request should be denied.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented did not demonstrate the existence of material error or injustice; that the application was denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered AFBCMR Docket Number 02-02439 in Executive Session on 22 October 2002, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 29 July 2002, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 5 September 2002.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 20 September 2002.